Forum:Fullbody Infobox Images
After noticing a few infobox images around, I think there's a rule we have that's seriously causing a problem: Full body images being the mandatory image, if available. Look at Doc Q's current image. It seriously lacks in quality and detail, while its previous version (with the exclusion of Stronger) did not. It was detailed, recognizable, and was completely drawn. Another example is Sarkies. He's clearly not completely detailed, and there certainly are other images of him that look better, but are half-body. Look at Domino's and Enishida's pre-timeskip manga images. That drawing of them is so small in the chapter, that when they're expanded it turns into an ugly mess. And this is all because of the "full body is mandatory" rule we seem to have. I don't have a problem with full body images, but if a full body image isn't even drawn with the right details completely, another one needs to be found. I think the rule should be what image looks best, rather than what image happens to show their legs more. 21:21, April 5, 2013 (UTC) Discussion I agree. While I'm not against full body shots, we should only use them if we have good quality images that don't make the subject look like a scribbled mess. If a good one isn't available, then a partial body shot would be more than acceptable, implored even, since at least it would be good quality. 21:25, April 5, 2013 (UTC) By the way, since it changed, I'm talking about this as Doc Q's "current" image. 21:40, April 5, 2013 (UTC) I agree that many of the full-body images we have are of quite awful quality. What we should do is aim for as much of the body as we can get while maintaining a reasonable level of quality. Then, we should put the bad image that has a full-body shot into the gallery, much like what we do with character's whose face can't be seen well. 23:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC) We have to stress quality first and % body shown second. 00:03, April 6, 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that's an old Mugiwara Franky rule anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 01:52, April 6, 2013 (UTC) So...can we change it? 02:48, April 6, 2013 (UTC) Full body should still be preferred, but only if it's of equal, or better quality. 03:00, April 6, 2013 (UTC) Does better quality mean "higher resolution of pixels", or "better drawn"? In my opinion, the latter should be right. As long as the image is detailed enough, there's no problem. 03:04, April 6, 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, the order of preference should be drawing quality > quality of "pose" and the like > resolution ≈ percentage of body shown. Can't find a good way to label what I put under "quality of pose". It's about the fact that the pose should, as much as possible, not be "dramatic" (as explained in the image guidelines), but also that it should not hide the general shape of the body, show unusual outfits or body details, etc. Pretty much what I have in mind has been expressed above by sff9. I'll only add that image quality doesn't equal higher pixel count. This is something we have to keep in mind at all times. MasterDeva (talk) 16:55, April 8, 2013 (UTC) That Hancock image wasn't bad at all. SeaTerror (talk) 17:31, April 8, 2013 (UTC) The Hancock image doesn't show the design of the skirt, and as an infobox image, the outfit should be visible wherever possible (provided it complies with the rest of the criteria, of course). 17:57, April 8, 2013 (UTC) I agree.Quality should be preferred. 20:07, April 8, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, Sff has the right idea there. It seems like most everyone is in agreement on the general idea here. We shouldn't get too nit-picky about specifics and take things on a case-by-case basis with consideration for these guidelines from now on. I'm a bit inactive this week, but someone should add these things to the actual page for the Image Guidelines (with some examples too), as well as add a notification in the Community Messages. 00:52, April 9, 2013 (UTC)